Individual rights v. governent intervention

[ATM]

SVG, ATM, Stealth, PPM,

If you reply to this stuff, do it for the benefit of genuinely interested readers...

Thanks, and agreed. I am of the opinion that genuinely interested readers would more likely avail themselves of the existing topical resources, the principles, descriptions, alternative solutions and best debates of the past several decades, than request that we always start anew with them here.

I'll turn a paraphrase or quote to pique the "statist quo" or challenge some other generally faulty premise, but I am merely an adherent of an ideal I consider to have been brilliantly revealed and presented. I am ill-suited and uninterested in representing the volume of their efforts or "dumbing down" their reasoned explanations into forum-sized bites.

As such, I suggest that genuinely interested readers both examine and scrutinize the source works or at least the modern refinements and outlines before assuming that there are new questions or misunderstandings which haven't already been adequately addressed or corrected.

 

[georg jetson]

+1 Kudos! I love it I do the same. (to the bolded part).

I find many of the statist arguments (I don't consider you a statist even though you are not an anarchist, statism to me is putting the state above the individual) are the same used by the anti gun folks. They believe lots of people owning guns will be blood on the street, mass violence etc.

Its the same as thinking people will just start killing others because someone inadvertently trespassed. Something that rarely happens and when it does the state is powerless to prevent it.

I tell you what. When I joined this forum, I found myself arguing on the side of the statists rather vehemently on the topic of anarchy. Over the years I've read some very compelling arguments and have been led to some good reading material on the matter. This thread has been one of the most Iinteresting here at OCDO and in particular OC for ME's last post. A very good response to those that think prior restraint is a good thing. Making crimes of things that really aren't crimes but MAY lead to a crime is an ideal path to tyranny. I'm starting to realize possibly that the threat of force of a goverment is the ultimate in prior restraint.

 

[utbagpiper]

What the heck are you doing walking across my property, without first being granted permission to do so, by me. Do you hold so little regard for my property right? Do you need a government to protect you from the consequences from your not respecting my right(s)?

You do realize it, you just do not agree with it, or the premise. Doing these things harms no one, except the state, this is nothing but prior restraint...bad, very bad, and very anti-liberty...the concept of prior restraint is anti-liberty, not you specifically.

So what actual damage is inflicted if I walk across your property?

Is there not a glaring inconsistency in your assertion that gross risk of harm isn't a crime until actual harm is inflicted, but that somehow my walking across your property without your permission is somehow a serious violation of your rights?

Which is it? No crime until real harm inflicted? Or certain things are crimes even if you cannot show any actual harm?

Charles

 

[OC for ME]

So what actual damage is inflicted if I walk across your property?

Is there not a glaring inconsistency in your assertion that gross risk of harm isn't a crime until actual harm is inflicted, but that someone my walking across your property without your permission is somehow a serious violation of your rights?

Which is it? No crime until real harm inflicted? Or certain things are crimes even if you cannot show any actual harm?

Charles

You do not get to decide what damage is done to my property, I do. Just as you are the sole arbiter of what damage is done to your property if our roles were reversed. I should not have to bear the burden of telling another citizen to leave my property, the burden is his to not enter, thus no harm, great or small, can be claimed by me.

Risk (a risk) is speculation, not fact. There can be no crime if there is not actual (physical) harm done, a violation of a right. Criminalizing the potential for harm is prior restraint. The perfect example, in my view, is "brandishing" laws, the only harm done, maybe, is to the sensibilities of the viewer, where no physical harm is done to them. Not one of their rights are violated if they witness a gun in hand. Yet, "brandishing" laws exist. Prior restraint only serves the purposes of the state who claims a mythical[SUP]2[/SUP] harm to itself, in the name of public safety. A gun in a holster is but a blink of a eye away from being in hand and the state does not see a harm being done here even though some folks claim they are harmed by the sight of a holstered handgun, let alone a gun in hand.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mythical

 

[Grapeshot]

You do not get to decide what damage is done to my property, I do. Just as you are the sole arbiter of what damage is done to your property if our roles were reversed. I should not have to bear the burden of telling another citizen to leave my property, the burden is his to not enter, thus no harm, great or small, can be claimed by me.

Risk (a risk) is speculation, not fact. There can be no crime if there is not actual (physical) harm done, a violation of a right. Criminalizing the potential for harm is prior restraint. The perfect example, in my view, is "brandishing" laws, the only harm done, maybe, is to the sensibilities of the viewer, where no physical harm is done to them. Not one of their rights are violated if they witness a gun in hand. Yet, "brandishing" laws exist. Prior restraint only serves the purposes of the state who claims a mythical[SUP]2[/SUP] harm to itself, in the name of public safety. A gun in a holster is but a blink of a eye away from being in hand and the state does not see a harm being done here even though some folks claim they are harmed by the sight of a holstered handgun, let alone a gun in hand.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mythical

Virginia's brandishing law might not make the best "no harm done" example. A recognized consigliere, Dan Hawes, has opined that brandishing is the same as assault, particularly when the act puts someone in fear of their life.

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

SVG, ATM, Stealth, PPM,

If you reply to this stuff, do it for the benefit of genuinely interested readers.

I say this because the hardcore statist supporters of coercion and force in this thread seem more than willing to drag us off into the weeds, hoping we'll get mired down in their side arguments, while totally avoiding one of the most important questions of all: equality. They will not, dare not fully admit the inescapable arrogance underpinning their position--that they are more equal than others and can rule those others without their express individual consent.

How do you "unequal" the other fellow? You either gotta raise yourself above him; or, lessen him in your own mind so that he becomes less than you.

That is a red-hot potato they won't touch.

I've got little interest or time in engaging with Charles; any individual who genuinely wanted to learn more would take the initiative, the responsibility, to look for the answers they seek, rather than have them handed to them by others who've already done the work. Not to mention that I've seen little in his long winded responses to encourage me to believe his questions are not hidden behind an agenda to tear down this topic, rather than understand it. Attacking the concept of anarchy seems to be an aphrodisiac of his, and my time is not so invaluable that I should feed his fetish.

 

[OC for ME]

Virginia's brandishing law might not make the best "no harm done" example. A recognized consigliere, Dan Hawes, has opined that brandishing is the same as assault, particularly when the act puts someone in fear of their life.

I accept the fact that the state (VA and likely many others) sees (prosecutes) brandishing the same as a actual (physical) assault. This too is a prior restraint and very anti-liberty.

I guess a citizen who "pistol whips" a uppity fellow citizen with a properly holstered handgun will avoid the "brandishing" charge...no?

 

[Grapeshot]

I accept the fact that the state (VA and likely many others) sees (prosecutes) brandishing the same as a actual (physical) assault. This too is a prior restraint and very anti-liberty.

I guess a citizen who "pistol whips" a uppity fellow citizen with a properly holstered handgun will avoid the "brandishing" charge...no?

Understand the jest. Still....

Maybe, but it steps up to Battery:
http://leg1.state.va.us/000/cod/18.2-57.HTM

There are several progressively more severe charges:
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.co...inal-offense/virginia-aggravated-assault-laws

 

[OC for ME]

Understand the jest. Still....

Maybe, but it steps up to Battery:
http://leg1.state.va.us/000/cod/18.2-57.HTM

There are several progressively more severe charges:
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.co...inal-offense/virginia-aggravated-assault-laws

How about this?

§ 18.2-56.1. Reckless handling of firearms; reckless handling while hunting. A. It shall be unlawful for any person to handle recklessly any firearm so as to endanger the life, limb or property of any person. Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.


http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-56.1

Prior restraint. Eye of the beholder. The bottom line is that we have a right not to be subjected to questionable visuals. Because, me handling a firearm properly and safely, not endangering anyone is subjective.

Was not a esteemed member of this forum subjected to a similar (or same) charge some time ago?

 

[Grapeshot]

How about this?
Prior restraint. Eye of the beholder. The bottom line is that we have a right not to be subjected to questionable visuals. Because, me handling a firearm properly and safely, not endangering anyone is subjective.

Was not a esteemed member of this forum subjected to a similar (or same) charge some time ago?

All true.

Elements of assault:

1. Intent - The defendant must act with the intent to create the state of fear or danger in the victim.
2. Reasonable apprehension: This means that the victim had a reasonable belief that they would be harmed by the defendant.
3. Imminent harm: The victim must experience fear in response to a threat that is imminent, or immediately about to occur.
4. Harmful: The defendant’s conduct must present a physical threat.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-libra...ed-to-prove-assault.html#sthash.DOwyNmxd.dpuf


Now introduce what would a reasonable man think/do.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+man+theory

Prior restraint is not a simple good v. bad IMHO.

 

[solus]

so, to the august membership, who are discussing this lofty subject amongest themselves and who by a direction of ONE wish this directed to only their readership...

a few members has stated you wish to enlist the aide of those around you to provide common community services in lieu of governmental entities providing them, therefore, if those so enlisted fail to provide satisfactory service you will seek others, paying them accordingly. Fair enough.

BUT...who decides the level of service to be provided and if the service is satisfactory or do all customers banded together of said service provider decide on the level of service, or is that agreed to individually on a case by case basis, and when service is inadequate, is it rejected individually or by all provider customers?

in this venerable discussion, since several of the august members specifically stated they required 'how this would be implemented' conversation as well as hyperbole philosophical discussion, it is lacking.

it appears since i needed enlightened on the subject my comments lack value at least according to the ONE...

such a great way to start your new society isn't it? seems as it breeds elitism solutions as only the few knowledgeable, at least from their perspective, have the ability to understand the principles.

that is out of my system for the moment, but as the august members continue their statist, anarchist, individual/governmental discussion i stand by my concept the white elitism founding fathers did not have to deal with other ethnic populations or their cultures which are now so pervasive across the whole bloody country! none of the august discussion members have broached the subject of it! why not?

following in the vein ~ Grape those legal definitions you spouted a couple of posts ago are no longer recognized by this and other collected individual right believers...as our security provider has different orders on dealing with those individuals who 'assault' our community members! the KKK operated that way against those whom they felt wronged their 'community'.

ipse

ps: BTW when you have ONE directing the discussion on individual rights don't you basically have a pseudo governmental entity or is that a tyrant controlling their domain?

pps: please do not operate under a misguided concept source works have been not been consulted yet some are taking their hyperbole as truth!

 

[ATM]

...
ps: BTW when you have ONE directing the discussion on individual rights don't you basically have a pseudo governmental entity or is that a tyrant controlling their domain?
...

Is individual assent to a proposal voluntary or coerced? That answer is a fundamental guide to distinguishing free governance from the control of tyrants

 

[solus]

Is individual assent to a proposal voluntary or coerced? That answer is a fundamental guide to distinguishing free governance from the control of tyrants

so ATM your genuine posting earlier established your stance of free governance in the this discussion?

ipse

 

[OC for ME]

... Prior restraint is not a simple good v. bad IMHO.

Accepted, your opinion that is. Prior restraint is a legal term that is a good vs. bad thing...when applied as the state sees fit...that is.

 

[ATM]

so ATM your genuine posting earlier established your stance of free governance in the this discussion?

ipse

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking or why. Probably a trap so I'll offer a bit more fodder. (I love a good trap!)

I am free to adopt or dismiss, engage or ignore, in a collaborative or independent fashion any portion of this discussion as suits me bound only by the terms of this forum host.

I am free to draw conclusions and make course adjustments at my pleasure or as I see fit to my purposes based upon observations, suggestions, even suspected motives provided by other participants.

I am assuming nobody else in this conversation is being coerced to either continue or desist.

 

[solus]

ATM, merry met as that was an exemplary answer.

ipse

 

[utbagpiper]

You do not get to decide what damage is done to my property, I do.

...

There can be no crime if there is not actual (physical) harm done, a violation of a right.

Do you not see the contradiction here? You say there can be no crime if there is not actual (physical) harm done; that only physical harm constitutes a violation of a right.

Yet you also insist that you alone get to decide what is a damage to your property.

By your own words, if there is no physical damage to your property, then no crime has occurred. If I inflict no physical damage, what harm have I done and what crime have I committed if I walk across your land without your permission?

Are you saying your rights extend to something beyond simply being free of having physical harm inflicted on you or your property?

What rights do you assert beyond being free of having physical harm inflicted on you?

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

In my opinion, and only off of the top of my head, the only necessary difference would be but a single vein of distinction - strict adherence to the non-aggression principle.

The libertarians are proponents of this principle. For sake of discussion, let us ignore for the time being honest differences of opinion about what constitutes "aggression" and how one might resolve those differences. No need to dive into those weeds.

Rather, if we were to have a government structure very similar in organization to what we have today, outlined in the constitution, but which adhered very strictly to whatever came to be accepted as the proper application of the non-aggression principle, would that government be fundamentally less moral than anarchy?

IOW, is the mere existence of a formal government structure immoral? Or is it failure to adhere to the non-aggression principle that you see as the immoral?

I'm really trying to drive at whether the NAP is really the fundamental difference or if there is something else, or more important for those who espouse a stateless society.

[Some] often view the formation of government as the condensing of violation of this principle into a single organization that might be kept in check to keep violations at a tolerable level.

Interesting observation.

What mechanisms are used to prevent non-government structures from violating the NAP? Why do we think they will work better than the mechanisms we've attempted to apply to government?

And can structures weak enough to be assuredly prevented from violating individual rights, also be strong enough to protect individual rights from violation by the bad members of society, or even other societies that are aggressive? This to me seems the eternal question of how to order society.

I am reminded of Madison's words that, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

I don't believe we're discussing a single, definable, structure. That's kind of characteristic of "anarchy" ...(snip only for length)...If anything that they were doing was of value, it is silly to think that they'd be unable to market their services in a stateless society.

I'll will give this some thought and see what questions emerge.

Thank you.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

it appears since i needed enlightened on the subject my comments lack value at least according to the ONE...

such a great way to start your new society isn't it? seems as it breeds elitism solutions as only the few knowledgeable, at least from their perspective, have the ability to understand the principles.

+1

We are at once castigated for not knowing and for daring to ask for enlightenment.

 

[Citizen]

Ummmm. Why was the post between #52 and #53 deleted by a moderator?

Those were absolutely were not insults. Those were precise conclusions based on and explained by verifiable facts, all in the direction of supporting and explaining why I would no longer engage a particular individual in this thread. There was no name calling. I didn't call him an a$$, or a jerk, or a crook. I laid out exact reasons that were in fact devoid of personal insult--I know because I was careful to ensure there was no insult.

Are we now in a forum where half-truths, strawmen, ad hominem, and self-contradictions, in large volume, cannot be called out and used as an explanation to other readers as to why the author chooses not to discuss with the transgressor?

Are we now in a forum where strawmen, ad hominem, and self-contradictions, as a routine posting style, are now equivalent to disciplined debate that eschews the cheesy tactics, fallacies, and illogics?